Updates to DR 09-0061

[Rex Jaeschke]

Hello Suzuki-san,

Last night (Berlin time), I circulated our word changes for this. This
morning, we edited them some more. The latest version of the first paragraph
is, as follows:

"This simple type specifies the Panose-1 font classification. This value is
used to select an alternate font if the desired font is unavailable."

Is this OK?

Rex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:10 AM
> To: Chris Rae
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org; florian.reuter at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Updates to DR 09-0061
> 
> Dear Chris,
> 
> Thank you for revising the draft. There is any rule to use the wordings
like
> "recommended" or "strongly recommended"
> in ISO/IEC 29500 spec? If possible, I want to insert "it is strongly
recommended
> to use valid Panose-1 value."
> 
> It seems that most of "it is strongly recommended" is enclosed by
[Note:...:end
> of Note] or [Example:...:end of Example]. But, there are several
> "recommended" words in normative parts. Followings are the list I could
find.
> 
> * 17.7.4.19 uiPriority
> "recommended setting is..." "recommended sort order...".
> * 17.15.1.93 writeProtection
> (there is an attribute named "recommended")
> * 18.4.6 rPh
> in the description of "eb" attribute,
> "It is recommended that the following condition also be satisfied"
> in the description of "sb" attribute,
> "It is recommended that the following condition also be satisfied"
> * 18.7.7 text
> "A recommended guideline is 32767 chars."
> * 21.1.2.2.3 endParaRPr
> "It is recommended that this element specified at the end of..."
> * 21.1.2.4.13 lvl1pPr
> "It is recommended that the order in which this and other level..."
> * 21.1.2.4.14 lvl2pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.15 lvl3pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.16 lvl4pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.17 lvl5pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.18 lvl6pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.19 lvl7pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.20 lvl8pPr
> Ditto.
> * 21.1.2.4.21 lvl9pPr
> Ditto.
> * 22.2.2.7 DocSecurity
> (there is a security level 2 described "Document is recommended to be
opened
> as read-only.")
> 
> Regards,
> suzuki toshiya, Hiroshima University, Japan
> 
> Chris Rae wrote (2011/06/21 1:39):
> > Following our discussion today, here is my proposed reworking of the
> resolution text for DR 09-0061. Suzuki-san - it was decided that I ought
not to
> use the "should" terminology in this instance, so I've tried to make clear
that
> Panose is ideal without using "should".
> >
> > Chris